On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:53:40AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:36:36 +0100 > > > I'm planning to redo this patchset the coming weekend so catch > > up with sparc-next. > > I may put a bit more effort into the sparc32 Makefile to clean it > > up a bit before the unification if time permits. > > Until then I would like to know if there is any strong desire > > to keep one kernel/ or should we go for kernel32, kernel64 (+ kernel/) two? > > > > I like to see the unifications and I see benefits in having > > all related files in the same dir - but I'm suprised that sparc32 > > and sparc64 differ that much (textual at least). There seems to > > be much more shared code in the x86 case for example. > > Sorry I haven't gotten to that stuff yet. > > I'd like to unify as much code as possible. I think there is > more commonality than is obvious currently, and the stuff that > is different is often because sparc32 has rotted and hasn't > been updated to the ongoing changes in the tree as aggressively > as sparc64 has. > > So just put it under a single kernel/ Thanks - will do. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
